If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.

While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.

In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.

In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.

But even if it were purely an assumption, it isn't an unreasonable one. As you say yourself, infantry are the best simulated element in the Arma series, and as I pointed out earlier the vehicle simulation is pretty basic for the most part. The logical conclusion is that the infantry have so far been the primary focus of development, so I think it's safe to go with that until a dev contradicts it (which hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge).

Or it's that making infantry realistic is the easiest aspect to simulate. Think about the things needed to be done to make infantry realistic in something like COD. Not much really... Now think about the things needed to be done to make arma have realistic vehicles...

A developer has not to my knowledge confirmed infantry is the main focus. And besides what else can you add to infantry to make it more realistic for a video game with today's technology. So even if it is the main focus, it shouldn't be anymore. As improvements to infantry are very minor and shouldn't take long at all. While vehicles are in need of huge improvements. And with arma 3 the larger improvements that we know about being made are really not infantry focused.

Infantry has been the primary focus yes that much is obvious given how many updates they get, that said there is no doubt that there is expansion in mind with physX coming. While infantry are gaining ragdolls vehicles are also getting proper suspension and so on, RTT is another more vehicle priority focus unless we will be carrying mirrors into urban zones to look around corners without exposing ourselves to peek.

While it would be nice to have fully interactable cockpits, advanced weapon systems, tracking systems, dynamic arming capabilities, very complex damage model and so on I just don't see that happening as it takes a LOT of time, that said simply giving us the capability would do well enough. When you look at the effects that come out of the capabilities the pieces fall into place to making things more complex..think about it.

In OFP armor interiors were possible and did not interfere with the players sight other than what they were meant to, in Arma1 we saw that HDR caused intense issues when looking at the inside of the Stryker, and while HDR has been getting improvements we can still see, especially inside structures, that it would still interefere. Now what is another arguement for lack of vehicle love?..well what is the point they say. With RTT coupled with thermal imagery especially if (and I hope) environmental thermal takes a fairly high priority, we now have a purpose to have interiors where HDR would not screw with our eyes. It sounds useless but this increases immersion drasticly but also potential.

In the end we all want Arma to be something different, two most distinguished sides want it to remain as is, the other side wasn't mistress-like hardcore, obviously BI can't please either party to the fullest but by taking things 'easy' and providing us the knowledge and abilities to use the upgrades to further our agenda's, in a way they can please both.

Which updates to infantry are you talking about? Give some examples that improved the infantry simulation please.

When a developer advertises a game in the mil-sim genre, there really is no excuse not to be trying to simulate more and more of the battlefield. It shouldn't be necessary to have to mod a mil-sim game to make it actually simulate what it was supposed to in the first place. IMHO if you're going to have vehicles in this game that is supposed to be realistic, don't make them arcade shit, or just don't add them.

Going through the lineage.. Infantry got the capability to jog with AT and AA weaponry in Arma1, roll, a new set of animations and some tweaking to action menu functions. What were previously accessed via AM in OFP became keys, \ to salute, , to sit and so on. Weapons also became 3D while vehicles remained relatively the same, the major addition being weapons mounted on wheeled vehicles from the beginning.

I'm not argueing that vehicles shouldn't be simulated with more depth, I fully agree but how far should that simulation go is the question, BI can't please everyone...personally I think that by not simulating, that the games potential is being held back..now obviously not everyone agree's so the next best option is to give us the capability.

That said I don't think vehicles will be getting as cold of a shoulder, on assumption that all features will be included..we've seen laser range finders on infantry weapons so let us assume this will be on vehicles..thermals are staying, physX will give vehicles more depth. If the flight model mirrors TKOH helicopters will be able to lose their rotors, taxi, have RTT screens which may have full camera functionality which would span helo, vehicle and fixed wing alike. Interactive cockpits I don't know about yet.. The damage system is getting at least a small tweak in that engines can be taken out like tires rather than 'killing' the enemy.. weapon trajectories are still out and I don't see them simulating the arc of AGM-114K's but still the stated above give us a variety of options..oh the things could be done...

So we actually have working mirrors, and in some missions the heavy helicopter (Merlin) gets a video picture displayed into the big MFD's. So that's also working like a charme. I bet that'll be included into Arma3.

It is in TKOH yes but the screen locks on to an indicated target and tracks it, or you see a screen locked on to you and displaying your distance to it. In order for it to work on an attack vehicle it needs to have user slew capabilities. Symbology isn't quite as difficult since it can be tailored on to the MPD.

Yet to use the FLIR camera in TKOH so I don't know if it follows the same 'lock to target' principle or if it slews. That said I have faith that BI will get this right should they choose to pursue it.

For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...

This can easily be scripted in a mission/mod. You don't want to reduce the overall possibilities. Having only pilots able to fly is not a good thing to have as a general rule, however it can be in public servers, i guess.

For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...

There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.

For me, more dedicated realism would be; you have to log in as a pilot if you want to be able to fly. A pilot can not take a heavy machine gun and two rocketlaunchers into the cockpit of an Apache... a pilot should only be able to carry a sidearm into a cockpit, nothing more. If he steps out, he can pick up other arms like anyone else, but not take it into the cockpit...

Aka "what speedone thinks is realistic."

BlackMamb's got the right perspective here -- you can script a mission this way just fine, but some guys' own mission ideas will specifically disagree, not least since "log in as a pilot" specifically implies a Battlefield-style class system.

Originally Posted by wipman

There's room on the AH-1W cockpit to store a M4 carbine and same on the AH-64, UH-60 & UH-1N.

I believe that "carry in your vehicle" was somewhat the point of carrying carbines in the early years?

P.S. Seeing as this thread wasn't updated for over a year until this month... yeah, 2012 definitely made me believe that "the BI devs focused on infantry simulation", if only because it seemed the most visibly changed at E3/Gamescom 2012 compared to helicopters or wheeled vehicles.

BlackMamb's got the right perspective here -- you can script a mission this way just fine, but some guys' own mission ideas will specifically disagree, not least since "log in as a pilot" specifically implies a Battlefield-style class system.

Maybe have a module that had to be placed in the editor (default off) that automatically made it so only pilots can fly and crew can only drive armored vehicles.